Skyscraper Graveyard II: Jealousy and Ambition

[the_druid_droid]

Originally Posted by Deadly

A lot of people think math is this sort of fixed, unchanging monument, a list of formulas to learn by rote or apply to the same old kinds of problems, that nothing new ever happens. That could not be further from the truth. A change from pi to tau could be an opportunity to teach not just the math, but also the history of math and how math is a subject in constant change where you can still discover new or better ways to do things. That would be a very positive thing to teach kids.

I've certainly found history of science to be interesting, and in some more advanced (and thicker) texts it sneaks in alongside the exposition. Having context is always helpful.

I think some people's issue with math is that they view it as primarily logical vs. historical and then consider that logic shouldn't be mutable, so teaching about the emergence of the ideas is somehow less valuable than the ideas themselves and thus math comes to exist in some sort of imagined historical vacuum.

Originally Posted by Anarion

I agree with you that Luna is best princess and I also like your fanon that Luna is more powerful than Celestia.

I've sort-of headcanoned for a while that Luna was banished because the options came down to "banish her and figure out what to do" or "overcharge the Elements and destroy outright" owing to Luna/NMM's power level.

[Anarion]

Originally Posted by the_druid_droid

I've certainly found history of science to be interesting, and in some more advanced (and thicker) texts it sneaks in alongside the exposition. Having context is always helpful.

Yay history of science! I found it interesting enough to be my undergraduate major.

[SiuiS]

Originally Posted by Deadly

Hoh boy! I think you just blew up the universe, man!

Sometimes I think I could argue that it's not OK to beat up old ladies, and everyone would still push and shove to get first in line to argue that we should totally go beat up all the old ladies for lulz. Is there some kind of lets-argue-with-Deadly conspiracy? Do you do it on purpose?

No, it just gets shorter. "I agree" is much less of a dissertation. I've agreed with you plenty! It's just the arguments snag memory.

Well, the gauntlet is down, then! Tell me what your stance on beating old ladies is. Go on, tell me I'm wrong.

I dislike violence an find it's application for any means other than endin more egregious violence to literally sicken an offend me.

The only argument I can see for dismissing tau is the status quo, that we don't want to bother about something new because it's not big enough to worry about, that it's not significant enough, and that's not a good argument. That's the kind of argument that leaves everything stagnant and prevents progress.

But this isn't true. You can't say that as a defense without proving it, especially when countered. Besides, change for the sake of change is just as bad as status quo.

Working within math, it's easier but keeps people from getting there. Working from outside of a firm mathematics base, it's easier to not use math terms at all. A circle I defined as a round shape whose width is constant (with exceptions; a perfect circle is almost impossible to generate, a perfect ring impossible due to gravity, etc). That has nothing to do with radius, diameter, circumference, etc. it does have to do with terms every seven year old will understand, an is then used to teach diameter, radius and circumference. Diameter is easiest to get, because it's a fancy term for width. Radius took a minute, and I was ahead of te curve when I figured out that a circle was a point with an infinite number of rays terminatin at the same arbitrary distance. That was fun for me, and that's good; math having levels you can climb benefits because people, kids in particular, like discovering. Starting at the harder math is probably not going to work so well.

I totally agree with you, except that I think you're thinking of something more than me when you say long division.

Long division is being able to write out a division problem, simply put. It usually ends up tiered and moving slightly to the right. It's writing it out the long way.

You've got me though. When I noticed te long division thingy an the algorithm thingy were the same, I was told it was a coincidence. I didn't know long division was an algorithm. An artifact of the most atrocious schooling immaginable from 14 on.

Did you look at the manifesto I linked earlier? Pi is absolutely not in any way just as correct or elegant as tau.

A teacher could simply draw a circle and say "this is a circle, it is this long around, it is this wide, now calculate!" No doubt that's how it goes often enough, and kids are familiar enough with the intuitive, common-sense notion of a circle as something round that they probably won't struggle with that.

But what if you draw an ellipse and ask, is this a circle? They may eagerly raise their hands and answer yes (or maybe they will be smart and say no), and then you'll have to say, no this is an ellipse because it's kinda less round. And sure, they'll get that too and not even blink.

But a circle is not defined as "something round that is not slightly squeezed, because then it's an ellipse". If you just want to teach kids raw calculation, as in fact is what is taught most of the time, then it's fine to just leave them with their every-day idea of what a circle is.

Kids don't learn eclipse. They learn 'oval'.
I already answered the rest, but the important thing here is; how frustrated do you hav to be to resort to questioning whether I read your original point in exasperation? That's my bad. Probably my tone, I angle towards aggressive because others results, and I can't always trust folks know I'm not being emotional about it, just persistent.

If you didn't have a problem with pi, I can not imagine you would have had a problem with tau either, had history looked different. But someone who struggles with pi (especially later on) may benefit tremendously from switching to tau instead, and it would be even better if they didn't have to make that switch (until they're comfortable enough with it). Therefore, start with tau!

Stop. Slow down.

I don't have a problem with tau. This debate has more than two options. It's not one or the other. My answer has been, this whole time, 'Both'.

You are wrong that it halts progress, exactly the opposite. It incites debate and study, it causes us to look deeper at the math, to try to understand it better or in a different way. That is progress.

That was poorly done on my part, let me rephrase.
A world of darkness conspiracy is always something twisted up to the most ludicrous possible amount. I do not believe that is how it works in reality. I do belief that is how it would look to the awakened if it were a plot point.

Originally Posted by the_druid_droid

I've certainly found history of science to be interesting, and in some more advanced (and thicker) texts it sneaks in alongside the exposition. Having context is always helpful.

I think some people's issue with math is that they view it as primarily logical vs. historical and then consider that logic shouldn't be mutable, so teaching about the emergence of the ideas is somehow less valuable than the ideas themselves and thus math comes to exist in some sort of imagined historical vacuum.

One of my favorite moments in math class was reading about some form I equation, and realizing that I could be reversed and applied to something I learned last month in order to figure out a new thing.

One of my least favorite moments in math was not easing my hand an declaring it, because that was the next thing the teacher brought up.



Man. I can't believe every creative use requires mana. That's gonna hurt

[Tiki Snakes]

Haha, Who's laughing now? *sits on his pile of rotes*
Uh, what I mean to say is;

Maths and the Seers - In the real world, understanding maths is a worthy goal in and of itself, even without an application.

In the World of Darkness, delving deeper into mathematics itself is a Seer trap, drawing the mathematician away from understanding the world itself and into an introspective pursuit of abstract concepts that only serve to occupy and isolate a mind that could otherwise have turned those same mathematical skills on better understanding the way the world actually works and possibly even discovering the lie/awakening. Admittedly, chances are that it's also usually a free council plot to get people to understand the underlying truths of the world in order to do exactly the opposite.

Or something. If we're lucky, the various cabals and cliques and schemers can keep track of which side is responsible for the mathematical conspiracies they are aiding (but I doubt it).

Also, Punch Old Ladies?

Spoiler

Depends on the old lady.
Some of them deserve it.
Down with the unicorns?

Uh, which is to say, the thing is Deadly, I think that you're mind works in unusual patterns. That and you tend to hold onto ideas very strongly, with passion. This inevitably means that clashes of concept are more likely.
Entertaining, though.

[Deadly]

Well, people agree with me sometimes on things, sure. It just seems whenever I end up in one of these big arguments, it's always me arguing with several people, with no one on my side. It's always me against everyone else with these things. The small things, sure, people agree with me there, but the moment it turns into an actual argument all my supporters seem to vanish in puffs of smoke

Is it because they're all afraid? Am I'm the only one who has to guts to argue my views in the face of the majority?

Originally Posted by SiuiS

But this isn't true. You can't say that as a defense without proving it, especially when countered. Besides, change for the sake of change is just as bad as status quo.

I have not been convinced by your arguments yet. Everything seems like a desperate attempt to cling to the status quo, or a failure to imagine learning things differently.

This is not for the sake of change, it is for the sake of improvement and better education.

Originally Posted by SiuiS

Working within math, it's easier but keeps people from getting there. Working from outside of a firm mathematics base, it's easier to not use math terms at all. A circle I defined as a round shape whose width is constant (with exceptions; a perfect circle is almost impossible to generate, a perfect ring impossible due to gravity, etc). That has nothing to do with radius, diameter, circumference, etc. it does have to do with terms every seven year old will understand, an is then used to teach diameter, radius and circumference. Diameter is easiest to get, because it's a fancy term for width. Radius took a minute, and I was ahead of te curve when I figured out that a circle was a point with an infinite number of rays terminatin at the same arbitrary distance. That was fun for me, and that's good; math having levels you can climb benefits because people, kids in particular, like discovering. Starting at the harder math is probably not going to work so well.

You are basing all this on your personal experience of learning this in a particular way. You are assuming that it would have been harder for you or others to learn stuff about circles if it had been introduced using a distance from a point.

You were taught about circles a certain way, by your own admission from teachers who weren't perhaps doing the greatest job. Maybe that made it a little harder to understand radius than it did diameter, perhaps exactly because you started with diameter. Had you started with the idea of a circle as a distance, perhaps diameter would have seemed odd or easily ignored to you because it doesn't seem to serve much purpose once you have the radius.

Radius, aside perhaps from the unfamiliar word, is not a harder concept than diameter. You can also use various visual and practical aids to illustrate radius, for example you can use a compass/divider, or a pole with a length of rope, ... that's pretty intuitive and natural stuff and easy to play around with.

I don't want to start at the harder math, I want to start with simple, intuitive ideas and use those to discover fascinating things and build a solid foundation. Exactly what math ought to be, and also what you seem to want. We just can't seem to agree that radius is not a hard concept to teach.

Originally Posted by SiuiS

Kids don't learn eclipse. They learn 'oval'.
I already answered the rest, but the important thing here is; how frustrated do you hav to be to resort to questioning whether I read your original point in exasperation? That's my bad. Probably my tone, I angle towards aggressive because others results, and I can't always trust folks know I'm not being emotional about it, just persistent.

Well, I took a long breath and a little walk before replying

I'm not entirely sure how to read what you're saying here, though. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Tiki Snakes

Or something. If we're lucky, the various cabals and cliques and schemers can keep track of which side is responsible for the mathematical conspiracies they are aiding (but I doubt it).

Yeah, I think the lesson is it all depends on who we ask

Originally Posted by Tiki Snakes

Also, Punch Old Ladies?

Spoiler

Depends on the old lady.
Some of them deserve it.
Down with the unicorns?

Dammit, alright! You got me there

Originally Posted by Tiki Snakes

Uh, which is to say, the thing is Deadly, I think that you're mind works in unusual patterns. That and you tend to hold onto ideas very strongly, with passion. This inevitably means that clashes of concept are more likely.
Entertaining, though.

I do not hold on to my ideas more strongly than they are worth. I frequently reconsider my views and constantly consider the other side, and I have on occasion agreed that I was wrong and many times I have ended up revising my position on various issues. Sometimes it takes a while, because I do not believe in flip-flopping either. If I change my mind it is because I have given it some actual consideration first, not on a whim because of some minor argument that seemed reasonable at a first glance.

I always take my time thinking things over, which I admit may lead to me saying some stupid things in the meantime.

I don't see any of you being swayed by my point of view much either

[Tiki Snakes]

Originally Posted by Deadly

I do not hold on to my ideas more strongly than they are worth. I frequently reconsider my views and constantly consider the other side, and I have on occasion agreed that I was wrong and many times I have ended up revising my position on various issues. Sometimes it takes a while, because I do not believe in flip-flopping either. If I change my mind it is because I have given it some actual consideration first, not on a whim because of some minor argument that seemed reasonable at a first glance.

I always take my time thinking things over, which I admit may lead to me saying some stupid things in the meantime.

I don't see any of you being swayed by my point of view much either

Sure, I'm certainly not disagreeing. But where some people get sucked into arguments like this because Someone is Wrong on the Internet, you seem to me (and my own weird perspective on matters) to invest a lot more genuine passion into your views and ideas.

Hard to explain, perhaps. I tend to see things pretty weirdly myself.

[the_druid_droid]

Originally Posted by Deadly

I don't see any of you being swayed by my point of view much either

I actually find your point about the naturalness of radius as a characterization of a circle to be a fairly strong argument for tau, at least to my way of thinking. It's just that to put it in perspective, I don't feel very strongly about the pi vs. tau issue overall.

[Deadly]

Originally Posted by Tiki Snakes

Sure, I'm certainly not disagreeing. But where some people get sucked into arguments like this because Someone is Wrong on the Internet, you seem to me (and my own weird perspective on matters) to invest a lot more genuine passion into your views and ideas.

Hard to explain, perhaps. I tend to see things pretty weirdly myself.

Passion is important. Passion is to live, to feel! Without passion, what is anything but a shadow?

Originally Posted by the_druid_droid

I actually find your point about the naturalness of radius as a characterization of a circle to be a fairly strong argument for tau, at least to my way of thinking. It's just that to put it in perspective, I don't feel very strongly about the pi vs. tau issue overall.

I suppose not everyone feels so passionately about the finer points of math like I do. I suppose I wouldn't expect that either, I just hope I can at least convince people that there's a depth and beauty here which has worth in itself, and perhaps other kinds of worth too, even if they personally don't have to care about it.

I think tau is beautiful, it's elegant and graceful. This beauty and this ... view is something I wish everyone could see and feel. I wish I could show people how I see things, but no matter how much I try, words just never do. And I know there is so much more out there that I'm not seeing, and that I may never see, and that makes me sad. That's why I care.

[Tiki Snakes]

Originally Posted by Deadly

Passion is important. Passion is to live, to feel! Without passion, what is anything but a shadow?



I suppose not everyone feels so passionately about the finer points of math like I do. I suppose I wouldn't expect that either, I just hope I can at least convince people that there's a depth and beauty here which has worth in itself, and perhaps other kinds of worth too, even if they personally don't have to care about it.

I think tau is beautiful, it's elegant and graceful. This beauty and this ... view is something I wish everyone could see and feel. I wish I could show people how I see things, but no matter how much I try, words just never do. And I know there are so much more out there that I'm not seeing, and that I may never see, and that makes me sad. That's why I care.

The reason Tau is unlikely to get anywhere isn't that it might not be better so much as it's that Tau isn't better enough for it to be worth the change.
At the end of the day, there was good reasoning behind the creation of Esperanto and Betamax was supposedly acknoledged as the better format.

More importantly by far; Would you say Amun tends to think in a similar way?

[Deadly]

Originally Posted by Tiki Snakes

The reason Tau is unlikely to get anywhere isn't that it might not be better so much as it's that Tau isn't better enough for it to be worth the change.
At the end of the day, there was good reasoning behind the creation of Esperanto and Betamax was supposedly acknoledged as the better format.

That is true, and I know tau faces a huge barrier. Often adoption of standards and conventions are not purely rational. That doesn't stop me from hoping or supporting what I feel to be the superior choice. I fully admit that I am in every way an idealist.

Originally Posted by Tiki Snakes

More importantly by far; Would you say Amun tends to think in a similar way?

All my characters have a bit of me in them, Amun is no exception. I think Amun would agree with me on tau, where we differ is that ... Aside from the elegance, which he agrees with of course, tau is also the underdog. That's more important to Amun than it is to me.

[SiuiS]

Originally Posted by the_druid_droid

I actually find your point about the naturalness of radius as a characterization of a circle to be a fairly strong argument for tau, at least to my way of thinking. It's just that to put it in perspective, I don't feel very strongly about the pi vs. tau issue overall.

Agreed.

Deadly, my problem is that the conversation so far reads like this;
D: This is true, and this better.
S: oh? My understanding is they are equal.
D: no this is better.
S: do you have proof?
D: of course I have proof, my proof is its true.
S: that's not proof. You haven't shown how its true.
D: yes I have! You're just supporting the status quo!

Now, I've freely admitted my understanding (or lack thereof) is what's holding me back. To my less enlightened understanding, you're wrong, because Pi makes perfect sense even to the kids who didn't get math, and I've seen no representation of tau making sense to non-mathematicians anywhere on the net. And your response is that my experiences are anecdotal and discountable; that testimony from EVERYONE I've known who hasn't gone into math is discountable; that you don't need to disprove my points when you can discount them, and you don't need to prove your points because I'm just blindly supporting the status quo (despite that never really wing a thing I've done- catechism is about challenging everything, after all).

That's irrelevant. What IS relevant is why this is so important to you that instead of examining your own beliefs through the alternate lens I've laid out, you feel the we'd to dismiss my opinion entirely through a subtle ad hominim attack, where I'm ignorable because the status quo is bad. You're making a lot of emotional arguments for a strictly logical thing. Why? I've said I agree with you but that I am not myself wrong. This is possible; instead, your preposition is bent on pi being "bad" and tau being "good". You aren't praising tau, you're trying to defeat pi. Why?

In essence, I'm your friend. Why do you feel so personally attacked? That's more important than any specific argument.

[Deadly]

Originally Posted by SiuiS

Agreed.

Deadly, my problem is that the conversation so far reads like this;
D: This is true, and this better.
S: oh? My understanding is they are equal.
D: no this is better.
S: do you have proof?
D: of course I have proof, my proof is its true.
S: that's not proof. You haven't shown how its true.
D: yes I have! You're just supporting the status quo!

Now, I've freely admitted my understanding (or lack thereof) is what's holding me back. To my less enlightened understanding, you're wrong, because Pi makes perfect sense even to the kids who didn't get math, and I've seen no representation of tau making sense to non-mathematicians anywhere on the net. And your response is that my experiences are anecdotal and discountable; that testimony from EVERYONE I've known who hasn't gone into math is discountable; that you don't need to disprove my points when you can discount them, and you don't need to prove your points because I'm just blindly supporting the status quo (despite that never really wing a thing I've done- catechism is about challenging everything, after all).

That's irrelevant. What IS relevant is why this is so important to you that instead of examining your own beliefs through the alternate lens I've laid out, you feel the we'd to dismiss my opinion entirely through a subtle ad hominim attack, where I'm ignorable because the status quo is bad. You're making a lot of emotional arguments for a strictly logical thing. Why? I've said I agree with you but that I am not myself wrong. This is possible; instead, your preposition is bent on pi being "bad" and tau being "good". You aren't praising tau, you're trying to defeat pi. Why?

I'm sorry if you feel like I've resorted to personal attacks or any such thing, or that I'm dismissing or ignoring your points. I'm trying hard to clarify what I'm saying, or more often what I'm not saying. I read what you're saying and I try to see your side, but we really seem to have a great talent for debating misunderstandings.

I always try to be friendly and open in these debates, even when it drags on a gets a little frustrating at times.

...

I am not disputing that pi works, or that children get pi without trouble. It does, and they do. Pi is not an issue until later. What I'm saying is that tau is not worse than pi in the beginning, and is better later on. So why teach pi? I can not imagine any other reason than because we've always taught pi, and that's not about you or what you're arguing. It's a conclusion I reach based on my own arguments and not yours.

Maybe you feel you have a pretty good case for using pi which isn't just about status quo, but I'm beginning to think you're just misunderstanding my intentions, and so we're really arguing different things. I only hope to clear up things.

Originally Posted by SiuiS

In essence, I'm your friend. Why do you feel so personally attacked? That's more important than any specific argument.

I'm not feeling personally attacked in any way. I joke a bit about what seems like our ability to end up in debates like this, but I try to make that obviously lighthearted.

[SiuiS]

Okay then. Can you give me one example of where tau is better, and pi is worse, outside of advanced mathematics?

-

Have to recalculate for my friend now. If his third arcanum costs mana I'll need to caution him towards being careful - he's only used magesight so far, and I think I'll let that slip for now. Need to start a thread somewhere for Mage ideas; name, tradition, virtue, vice, likely arcana and quirks.

[the_druid_droid]

Originally Posted by SiuiS

Have to recalculate for my friend now. If his third arcanum costs mana I'll need to caution him towards being careful - he's only used magesight so far, and I think I'll let that slip for now. Need to start a thread somewhere for Mage ideas; name, tradition, virtue, vice, likely arcana and quirks.

Do you mean in general, or for a specific character?

Generally speaking, I quite like riffing off the Tarot symbolism to start up my Mage concept-association ventures.

[Tiki Snakes]

Rotes; They really aren't that expensive and they save you a lot of mana in non-favoured arcana casting. I may have got carried away, but they have very real uses.

Going to second Anarion Druid Droid too. You mind elaborating on the mage-ideas-thread-thingy SiuiS? (Inherantly nosey).


Edit - I am an idiot. Fixed.

[Anarion]

Originally Posted by Tiki Snakes

Rotes; They really aren't that expensive and they save you a lot of mana in non-favoured arcana casting. I may have got carried away, but they have very real uses.

Rotes are very specific, but very good at what they do. Personally, I'm thinking some combination of gnosis+arcana is better, especially since you can shape ruling freely and be very flexible. But I can definitely see the case for at least a few rotes, especially in your non-ruling arcana.

[Thanqol]

Originally Posted by Anarion

Rotes are very specific, but very good at what they do. Personally, I'm thinking some combination of gnosis+arcana is better, especially since you can shape ruling freely and be very flexible. But I can definitely see the case for at least a few rotes, especially in your non-ruling arcana.

Rotes also tend to drop off in power as your gnosis rises. A 12 dice pool for a rote is a lot less impressive when your improvised pool is 8 as opposed to 4. On the other hand, the reduction of Paradox starts mattering more when your base paradox pool is 3 or greater.

[SiuiS]

Originally Posted by Tiki Snakes

Rotes; They really aren't that expensive and they save you a lot of mana in non-favoured arcana casting. I may have got carried away, but they have very real uses.

Going to second Anarion Druid Droid too. You mind elaborating on the mage-ideas-thread-thingy SiuiS? (Inherantly nosey).


Edit - I am an idiot. Fixed.

I'm all over rotes. I took a rote fr inscribing geimoire strictly because that way I could encode spells in martial arts kata. Was it practical? No. But I liked the idea of sleeper students doing the dance of Healing Heart or Numinous Shield Kata 3.

As for mages; I have two NPCs that are original, some that we're PC ideas I discarded, two cabal mates I'm hoping he won't spurn, an old PC of mine and hearsay about your guys' adventures. If I need a Mage NPC, it's either of the top of my head or steal from Thanqol. So I may just compile a list of short-hand NPCs.

Originally Posted by Thanqol

Rotes also tend to drop off in power as your gnosis rises. A 12 dice pool for a rote is a lot less impressive when your improvised pool is 8 as opposed to 4. On the other hand, the reduction of Paradox starts mattering more when your base paradox pool is 3 or greater.

yeah, well, guy's dealing with a dice pool of 3 and doesn't like the edgers because he is against being forced into politics. Luckily he met the guy he did. The alternatives were a low level Mastigos who likes to puppeteer, seers, a werewolf faction, and an apostate hobo on the verge of arch mastery. I am both proud that it was a legit sandbox, and chagrined the guy fell into the most Tutorial-esque clutches available.

Scanning the capability of the low-level arcana, it's thought provoking. Hell of a hard time explaining perfecting though; what is perfecting that isn't Weaving? Especially for spirit or prime or forces. No perfecting in sight.

And while arcana and gnosis pay off, I don't think there will ever be a point in time where 18 dice from chargen is bad. It's less spectacular, sure, but totally worth it. Especially for, say, healing. Especially especially if we go with the current notion of being able to adjust a spell's factors based on your rote dice pool - suddenly I'm healing everyone on my team within eyesight with a pool of ten. Still better than Life+Gnosis.

[Thanqol]

Originally Posted by SiuiS

Scanning the capability of the low-level arcana, it's thought provoking. Hell of a hard time explaining perfecting though; what is perfecting that isn't Weaving? Especially for spirit or prime or forces. No perfecting in sight.

Perfecting is improving something that's already happening/inclined to happen. Electricity moves around already. Making it move out of a wall socket and into a person is Perfecting; you're making it do something it's already inclined to do. Making a Spirit do it's damn job is Perfecting.

Weaving allows for much more significant changes; it's anything that doesn't alter a thing's fundamental nature. So in Fate, if you swear an oath to a Fae to give him payment in a month's time the oath's fundamental nature is 'you owe him'. Perfecting lets you seal that oath magically (making something likely to happen a certainty). Weaving lets you mess around with the conditions (you'll pay him in a year's time, or you'll give him a sheep rather than your firstborn). Patterning lets you flip it around so he owes you. Making is he's suddenly a party to an oath he certainly didn't agree to, and Unmaking is the contract simply ceases to exist.

This is why Mages are terrifying to Changelings.

And while arcana and gnosis pay off, I don't think there will ever be a point in time where 18 dice from chargen is bad. It's less spectacular, sure, but totally worth it. Especially for, say, healing. Especially especially if we go with the current notion of being able to adjust a spell's factors based on your rote dice pool - suddenly I'm healing everyone on my team within eyesight with a pool of ten. Still better than Life+Gnosis.

Sure, but when you've got limited character resources you've got to pick your road to Supreme Arcane Power. You can go through the Arcana (raw power), Gnosis (Supernal enlightenment) or Rotes (gathered knowledge). They all have advantages and disadvantages.

[the_druid_droid]

Originally Posted by SiuiS

As for mages; I have two NPCs that are original, some that we're PC ideas I discarded, two cabal mates I'm hoping he won't spurn, an old PC of mine and hearsay about your guys' adventures. If I need a Mage NPC, it's either of the top of my head or steal from Thanqol. So I may just compile a list of short-hand NPCs.

That could be fun. I'm all about tossing around character ideas!

Scanning the capability of the low-level arcana, it's thought provoking. Hell of a hard time explaining perfecting though; what is perfecting that isn't Weaving? Especially for spirit or prime or forces. No perfecting in sight.

From the description given, Perfecting seems to be more about positive alterations of an object or manifestation. Weaving is more general, I'm thinking?

Thanqol probably has a clearer distinction here.

And while arcana and gnosis pay off, I don't think there will ever be a point in time where 18 dice from chargen is bad. It's less spectacular, sure, but totally worth it. Especially for, say, healing. Especially especially if we go with the current notion of being able to adjust a spell's factors based on your rote dice pool - suddenly I'm healing everyone on my team within eyesight with a pool of ten. Still better than Life+Gnosis.

Yeah, I think rotes are powerful for early characters, provided you have some that correspond to skills you possess. The difference comes once you get to Gnosis 7-8 or so, since even with a rote, you would need 4 + 4 or 3 + 5 or so to get the equivalent dice pool, except you can apply the Gnosis to any spell roll you make.

Obviously by that point you're pretty far along, and Paradox becomes a much bigger thing, but I think Thanqol made this point before - it's a choice about methods. You can choose to improve via Gnosis, you can buy up lots of Arcana, or you can get lots of rotes and keep Gnosis (and associated Paradox pools) low.

Additionally, you can use rotes as magical currency.

EDIT: And Thanqol Pinkie'd me...

[SiuiS]

Originally Posted by Thanqol

Perfecting is improving something that's already happening/inclined to happen. Electricity moves around already. Making it move out of a wall socket and into a person is Perfecting; you're making it do something it's already inclined to do. Making a Spirit do it's damn job is Perfecting.

Your example literally falls under ruling. What does perfecting do that ruling does not? Unravelling does more than weaving. Rulin does more than compelling. But weavin seems to do all the perfecting stuff. They may be more cognates and less lateral ideas...

Sure, but when you've got limited character resources you've got to pick your road to Supreme Arcane Power. You can go through the Arcana (raw power), Gnosis (Supernal enlightenment) or Rotes (gathered knowledge). They all have advantages and disadvantages.

I don't buy Mages having limited character resources. Although Mage games - WoD games in general - tend to have a definite "Shows vet, make a new character and come back to a new game later" vibe.

[Thanqol]

Originally Posted by SiuiS

Your example literally falls under ruling. What does perfecting do that ruling does not? Unravelling does more than weaving. Rulin does more than compelling. But weavin seems to do all the perfecting stuff. They may be more cognates and less lateral ideas...

Oh, whoops, I got Perfecting and Ruling mixed up. *Checks the book* Oh, right, Perfecting is 3 not 2. It's taking and making better/more.


And I just finished XCOM:

Spoiler

The Ethereals seemed to know what they were doing right up till the final room and the dumbest boss fight.

"Blah blah blah uplifting humanity blah blah blah gifting you while doomed to try and consume you blah blah we're going to help you ascend blah -

"Wait, what? You're shooting at us? Just like you shot at EVERY OTHER DAMN THING on your way in here? No, what are you doing?! Who could have foreseen that you would respond with violence even while we were shooting plasma at you? You've doomed us all, you fools!"

What the hell, guys? This was the hole in your plan? This was what blindsided you? You weren't expecting a team of highly trained marines to shoot you upon entering your inner sanctum?


My other gripe with the game is that the replayability value looks disappointingly limited, for one core reason: There's no variability at T3. Once you've got your elite team armed with plasma tech then that's it. You've achieved the perfect build. There's no reason to variate from the perfect build. Similarly, after over-investing in tech early I completed the research tree and left my labs sitting around idle thereafter. That was lameskulls. Also I was disappointed by the lack of cool options in base management.

It was a good game, for sure, and I had fun with it but I'm disappointed because it could have been great if they'd just expanded the options. Oh well.

[Anarion]

Originally Posted by Thanqol

And I just finished XCOM:

Spoiler

The Ethereals seemed to know what they were doing right up till the final room and the dumbest boss fight.

"Blah blah blah uplifting humanity blah blah blah gifting you while doomed to try and consume you blah blah we're going to help you ascend blah -

"Wait, what? You're shooting at us? Just like you shot at EVERY OTHER DAMN THING on your way in here? No, what are you doing?! Who could have foreseen that you would respond with violence even while we were shooting plasma at you? You've doomed us all, you fools!"

What the hell, guys? This was the hole in your plan? This was what blindsided you? You weren't expecting a team of highly trained marines to shoot you upon entering your inner sanctum?


My other gripe with the game is that the replayability value looks disappointingly limited, for one core reason: There's no variability at T3. Once you've got your elite team armed with plasma tech then that's it. You've achieved the perfect build. There's no reason to variate from the perfect build. Similarly, after over-investing in tech early I completed the research tree and left my labs sitting around idle thereafter. That was lameskulls. Also I was disappointed by the lack of cool options in base management.

It was a good game, for sure, and I had fun with it but I'm disappointed because it could have been great if they'd just expanded the options. Oh well.

Given that I just wasted like 6 hours on replaying X-com, several points.

Spoiler

Two words: Classic Ironman. I've tried three saves, the furthest I made it was to the second UFO. There's no worry about getting stale endgame because classic ironman is a punishing attempt to force you to actually play conservatively and carefully.

Second, did you ever shoot down and raid an enemy battleship? There are two unique researches you get for doing that, including the "my god I can't believe explosions are this much fun when they're homing" blaster launcher.

Third, character builds. Have you tried the all-crit assault trooper with rapid fire and a plasma rifle? How about the same build with an alloy shotgun, but lightning reflexes in place of one of the +crit % talents so it can run in safely? Did you go bakc and make a super psion by starting with a recruit after researching the bonus will upgrade in officer training? If you get them good enough, you can mind control ethereals and have them use vortex on their own troops. There's even an achievement for that. Also, the all-explosive heavy vs. the amazing suppressive fire heavy.

There's also the all-S.H.I.V. team for fun, and setups like 5 snipers one guy with ghost armor, or 6 heavies with 6 blaster launchers to leave no stone upon stone.



Now, as regards the end, I'm right with you. I think the idea there was that they thought the volunteer really understood them because of the mind link thing. So they were telling the story with demonstrations. One line that is really telling happens if you let the volunteer drop to half hp or less. The ethereals go "your flesh rots, we begin to doubt our success." So, from their perspective, showing off all the other stuff by having it attack you was just a pretty demo. Anyone with that kind of psionic power was never actually threatened. But then, it still doesn't make sense why they're surprised when you burst in and start shooting them over and over with hot plasma. Also, screw the volunteer dieing. They killed Scootaloo, man! *Tear* she was too good for this world.

[Deadly]

So I apparently was a bit quick to panic with my IC OOC note, since Amun do have Supernal Vision as a rote. That's a relief. Anyway, who gets the last point of mana? I would take it, but I felt like being nice and ask first.

Originally Posted by SiuiS

Okay then. Can you give me one example of where tau is better, and pi is worse, outside of advanced mathematics?

*takes deep breath again*

Pi is not an issue until later.

And then it follows:

tau is not worse than pi in the beginning, and is better later on

Or in case "in the beginning" and "until later" were vague, let me rephrase those as "at early levels, outside advanced math" and "until advanced levels."

Disclaimer: The following spoiler contains my frank annoyance, in which I "attack" you. Now you know

Spoiler

You have a real tendency to either miss what I just said, or read something in what I wrote that I never imagined when I wrote the words. I've sometimes jokingly thought to myself that you pass everything I write through Google translate before reading it.

That's silly, of course, but anyway ... your posts are also frequently hard to decipher because many of your sentences are full of strange misspellings and odd words that make no sense, errors that look very much like the auto-correct/dictionary feature of your phone or whatever is screwing up. Obviously you're not to blame for your phone's strange doings, but it suggests to me that you don't read your own posts before hitting submit, because it's not little errors. Am I wrong? So it is not hard to take that further and imagine that you don't read my posts more than once either.

I tend to read my own posts many times, and your posts as well, especially the parts I reply to. Maybe, especially anytime you might feel I'm dismissing your points or getting defensive or something, perhaps read it again once or twice. If it still feels that way, then I guess I'll try better.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you do read my posts several times, but this is very much the impression I get a lot of the time when we discuss, and maybe in turn that's why I come off as frustrated and annoyed and angry, because I end up feeling like I have to excessively emphasize my points and turn them into bullet points so I'm sure they stand out enough. Like I shall now proceed to do.

Anyway, I do happen to think tau has an educational value at lower levels of school. Also, trigonometry (where tau really shines) is not that high level and may probably be encountered in late primary or early high school, depending on where you go to school and how they do things.

But this is a distraction! I'm willing to forget about that and say that for all intents and purposes pi and tau are completely equal when it comes to teaching young kids. And with that admission I then say, and this sentence that follows is my whole point, forget everything else! :

Given that tau is not worse than pi at that level, and that tau is better at higher levels, why pi?

[Thanqol]

Originally Posted by Anarion

Given that I just wasted like 6 hours on replaying X-com, several points.

Spoiler

Two words: Classic Ironman. I've tried three saves, the furthest I made it was to the second UFO. There's no worry about getting stale endgame because classic ironman is a punishing attempt to force you to actually play conservatively and carefully.

Second, did you ever shoot down and raid an enemy battleship? There are two unique researches you get for doing that, including the "my god I can't believe explosions are this much fun when they're homing" blaster launcher.

Third, character builds. Have you tried the all-crit assault trooper with rapid fire and a plasma rifle? How about the same build with an alloy shotgun, but lightning reflexes in place of one of the +crit % talents so it can run in safely? Did you go bakc and make a super psion by starting with a recruit after researching the bonus will upgrade in officer training? If you get them good enough, you can mind control ethereals and have them use vortex on their own troops. There's even an achievement for that. Also, the all-explosive heavy vs. the amazing suppressive fire heavy.

There's also the all-S.H.I.V. team for fun, and setups like 5 snipers one guy with ghost armor, or 6 heavies with 6 blaster launchers to leave no stone upon stone.



Now, as regards the end, I'm right with you. I think the idea there was that they thought the volunteer really understood them because of the mind link thing. So they were telling the story with demonstrations. One line that is really telling happens if you let the volunteer drop to half hp or less. The ethereals go "your flesh rots, we begin to doubt our success." So, from their perspective, showing off all the other stuff by having it attack you was just a pretty demo. Anyone with that kind of psionic power was never actually threatened. But then, it still doesn't make sense why they're surprised when you burst in and start shooting them over and over with hot plasma. Also, screw the volunteer dieing. They killed Scootaloo, man! *Tear* she was too good for this world.

XCOM: Enemy Described, -10 penalty

Spoiler

Yeah but they never made their pitch is what I'm saying. They never said, "Hey Twilight Sparkle," (my Volunteer), "Want to join up?" They just started talking to her and were surprised when she repaid them with missiles.

Like it was all excellent right up to the final room where there's that missing line of dialogue, "Strike down your friends and rule the galaxy at my side!" She never makes that choice.

Also they seemed to have no compunction about killing her which really makes me wonder what the hell their plan was.


My team was 4 assaults 1 sniper 1 support. I got my sniper up onto high ground and stormed the rest of the Assaults around the map. Two assault troopers closing into melee and double tapping with their Alloy cannon straight up murders anything in a ridiculous threat range.

I found Heavy an extremely disappointing class, really. Limited rockets, using explosives costs you salvage (my neurotic perfectionism!), and low hit chances even in ideal positions. As a comparison, Stephen Magnet sniped two enemies a round, every round, and my assault goons could gangbang any position with shotguns.

Will try classic ironman laters.

[Anarion]

Originally Posted by Thanqol

XCOM: Enemy Described, -10 penalty

Spoiler

Yeah but they never made their pitch is what I'm saying. They never said, "Hey Twilight Sparkle," (my Volunteer), "Want to join up?" They just started talking to her and were surprised when she repaid them with missiles.

Like it was all excellent right up to the final room where there's that missing line of dialogue, "Strike down your friends and rule the galaxy at my side!" She never makes that choice.

Also they seemed to have no compunction about killing her which really makes me wonder what the hell their plan was.


My team was 4 assaults 1 sniper 1 support. I got my sniper up onto high ground and stormed the rest of the Assaults around the map. Two assault troopers closing into melee and double tapping with their Alloy cannon straight up murders anything in a ridiculous threat range.

I found Heavy an extremely disappointing class, really. Limited rockets, using explosives costs you salvage (my neurotic perfectionism!), and low hit chances even in ideal positions. As a comparison, Stephen Magnet sniped two enemies a round, every round, and my assault goons could gangbang any position with shotguns.

Will try classic ironman laters.

X-com

Spoiler

Yeah, I was confused. I think maybe they wanted to kill you to finally ascend or something, maybe? I dunno, I just started shooting and figured the rest would sort itself out. Typical humans really. About to be offered enlightenment, start shooting plasma balls.

The heavy class, oddly, is actually more supportive than the support class. If you go the all suppression route, you get a guy that can basically disable one enemy every turn. The ai will never move under suppression, and becomes really inaccurate, making it especially useful early for capturing live enemies. Bullet storm allows the heavy to fire twice each turn if he doesn't move, same as double tap without the cooldown, though snipers admittedly make much better use of it thanks to squad sight and mad high damage. Also, if you take the +100% damage to robots, heavies are the best class for killing sectopods. Heavy plasma, ghost armor stealth, +damage to robots talent. Guaranteed to do 30 damage to a sectopod in one shot or your money back.

[SiuiS]

I feel left out. I has no monies for Xcom and by the time I do I'll have or gotten about it.

Spoiler

Originally Posted by Deadly

rant

That's a valid assessment, and what I was getting at by asking about personal levels. Two things, then, for the future.

When I'm still on a basic point, if someone is expounding on a chain of things, I'm not going to let that basic point go. I do this because agreeing to the rest of that chain requires me to make a big "Assuming you are correct" tag, which most people mistake for me agreein with them and arbitrarily changing my mind. To use this specific instance, I agree with you that everything you've said after 'tau is better' makes logical sense. But I'm still trying to see what makes it better.

Two, counterintuitively, correcting spelling errors makes them worse. My screen is indented in places based on touch use. Any oils on my fingers or on my screen transfer around. My phone goes in and out of my pocket usually around twenty times an hour if I can't leave it out, which spreads this stuff further. It changes the conductivity or whatever the screen uses to detect touch. The keypad has a 'smart' feature which is not changeable, which detects which key you meant to hit based off of finger positioning - it is entirely possible for me to press the E key and get an R instead, for seemingly no reason. After several attempts to correct a word, the Saturn begins to fail to recognize words as constructs, such that it will take the last two letters of a five letter word, guess what word you're typing from those two letters, and assume hitting the space bar is tacit acceptance of this change. It also cannot keep up with me, the processors sometimes failing to register that a word is "wrong" for almost a full minute. This results in words being "corrected" up to a minute later, when they are no longer on my screen. Some words are also "corrected" from a real word into a more common real word, and there is no visual cue.

As much as using this device is an art, I know the ropes involved. You'll have to trust that it was much worse before I did fix the most glaring problems.

I read your posts. I make sure to check them for tone, because I read several posters in unfortunate voices. Breaking it down to bullet points is what I'm asking. Not because I'm breaking you down or torturing you; I'm too dumb to get it without bullet points. simplicity and clarity are never bad things.

Anyway, I do happen to think tau has an educational value at lower levels of school. Also, trigonometry (where tau really shines) is not that high level and may probably be encountered in late primary or early high school, depending on where you go to school and how they do things.

"standard" American education has algebra finish up just before high school, with 'algebra 2' being an elective advance class. High school is usually Algebra 2 in freshman year (I don't know what this is exactly, either. Advanced algebra?), geometry in sophomore year, more algebra junior year, and your choice of calculus or free time senior year. Given the number of Seniors who show up the bare minimum to not be kicked out of school, I am not surprised. The average California reading level is 5th grade, too. Anyone who reads better than an eleven-year-old is ahead of the game.

Given that tau is not worse than pi at that level, and that tau is better at higher levels, why pi?

My standard answer is a flippant 'why not?' but I think you would take offense to that.

Given that tau is better, then teach it. But how is tau better? Still haven't gotten that one. I'm not arguing. I honestly don't see it.

[Tiki Snakes]

Originally Posted by SiuiS

I feel left out. I has no monies for Xcom and by the time I do I'll have or gotten about it.

Given that Ponythread is wall to wall Season 3 Spoilers(In and outside of spoiler boxes) and X-Com Reports right now, I kind of know that feel, bro.

For X-Com, what I can do is just join in anyway. Willfull Ignorance Ho!
X-Com

Spoiler

That does sound like an impressively half arsed alien villain plot. Few things sour the taste of a good game as quickly as the villains actual goal being completely retarded and the game universe not recognising that.

How did you guys find the difficulty, by the way? Wiki reception section notes the inevitable critic praising of the difficulty, would be interesting to know if that's the usual difficulty for difficulty's sake nonsense that ruins Dark Souls for me, or if it's just a legitimately challenging challenge?

[Thanqol]

Originally Posted by Tiki Snakes

Given that Ponythread is wall to wall Season 3 Spoilers(In and outside of spoiler boxes) and X-Com Reports right now, I kind of know that feel, bro.

For X-Com, what I can do is just join in anyway. Willfull Ignorance Ho!
X-Com

Spoiler

That does sound like an impressively half arsed alien villain plot. Few things sour the taste of a good game as quickly as the villains actual goal being completely retarded and the game universe not recognising that.

How did you guys find the difficulty, by the way? Wiki reception section notes the inevitable critic praising of the difficulty, would be interesting to know if that's the usual difficulty for difficulty's sake nonsense that ruins Dark Souls for me, or if it's just a legitimately challenging challenge?

Uh, having just made a few runs at Classic difficulty I can tell you that they're serious in it being hard.

Normal gets a bit dicey at times, but Classic you'll be losing dudes every mission.

[Tiki Snakes]

Quick Question;
When I originally wrote the entry for magical tools, I tried to leave the staff entry a little vague.

Which is to say, Cyprus uses anything with Gold and White on them as one of her tools. Would it be fair to say that Jack is able to do a similar thing, in as much as his Staff is his suit. Whichever one he's wearing, as long as it's tailored and made with vaguely modern materials as described? (As that was the original idea, just never got round to actually checking).

X-Com;
When it's hard, is it because the numbers are big and the ambushes sudden or hard to avoid, or is it because it ramps up the AI's smartness and the mix of enemies, etc?